Jump to content
Kami

Update 0.8.6. Feedback and Performance

97 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,897
[CUTEZ]
-Members-
1,641 posts
1,067 battles

updateisLive.jpg

Hey Captains,

With 0.8.6. being released, please leave your feedback and thoughts on the latest patch.

Please leave feedback on:

  • French Destroyers Early Access
  • Symbols of France Event
  • Ranked Battles
  • Clan Battles
  • Changes and Improvements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
879
[WOLFC]
Members
2,102 posts
12,032 battles

Once again, the sound quality during battle has become very degraded.  While firing the guns heavily, there is a lot of static and the sound is garbled.  This first started right after Release 0.8.0 and has been intermittent since then.  I don't recall it existing in the last release ... but it's back now with a vengeance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
29 posts
3,931 battles

Is there ANY game mode left where I can avoid matches with CVs?

I quit playing Ranked & Clan to focus on Co-op so I could avoid the CV debacle, but now CVs seem to have infested even the Co-op battles...

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,294
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
19,963 battles

Ranger Rescue is a bust. The CV restriction of 1 squad in use at a time renders the human CV useless. The AA renders the aircraft useless. 

Scrap this mess all 3 tier 6 CVs are useless! Revert to the RTS and make the adjustments to bomb and torp damage and eliminate strafe and manual attacks.

The post 7.12 CV play changes are complete garbage.

@Kami Pass that on to the CEO!

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,897
[CUTEZ]
-Members-
1,641 posts
1,067 battles
6 hours ago, DocWalker said:

Once again, the sound quality during battle has become very degraded.  While firing the guns heavily, there is a lot of static and the sound is garbled.  This first started right after Release 0.8.0 and has been intermittent since then.  I don't recall it existing in the last release ... but it's back now with a vengeance. 

Hey DocWalker,

Thanks for the heads up regarding in-game sound. Is this in every ship you play or in specific ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
207 posts
1,139 battles

Another unecessary buff to AA that literally nobody asked for, any plans to make CVs playable again for the average folk?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[IWP]
Members
21 posts
6,090 battles
4 hours ago, Bill_Schmuckatelli said:

Is there ANY game mode left where I can avoid matches with CVs?

I quit playing Ranked & Clan to focus on Co-op so I could avoid the CV debacle, but now CVs seem to have infested even the Co-op battles...

I was dreading it too, but so far the bot planes have been nothing to worry about at all, and the CV itself is welcome extra damage at the end of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[EGO]
Members
13 posts
6,041 battles

Just want to know if this was intended, The Normal French DD containers cost 150 doubloons, seems like the republic tokens would have been the choice currency for them.

 

 

2019.07.24-09.28.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,897
[CUTEZ]
-Members-
1,641 posts
1,067 battles
4 minutes ago, M4A1_SD said:

Just want to know if this was intended, The Normal French DD containers cost 150 doubloons, seems like the republic tokens would have been the choice currency for them.

 

 

2019.07.24-09.28.png

Hey M4A1_SD,

The Armory offers standard and Premium French Destroyers containers in exchange for doubloons. The Premium variety drop more rewards than standard ones. 

This is directly from the article: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/french-destroyers-the-full-guide/

So this is correct =). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,407
[-K-]
Members
4,957 posts
16,277 battles

Feedback:

  • Don't run Ranked and Clan Battles concurrently unless you want some of your most active players to burn out and quit
  • Simplify the event and reward structure. Not only does it take a dual degree in economics and law to understand, but it makes us hunt in 5 different places to check our progress (daily login, directives, frenchflakes in ship carousel, armory, missions).
  • Include desirable unique rewards somewhere in the event. As it is, there's nothing to look forward to for a player who's willing to wait for the French DDs to hit the tech tree next patch. DO NOT take this as a request to swing back to the extreme grind of Exeter or Benham. Find something in the middle, please!
  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,324
[CMFRT]
Members
10,304 posts
On 7/23/2019 at 9:29 AM, Kami said:

Hey Captains,

With 0.8.6. being released, please leave your feedback and thoughts on the latest patch.

Please leave feedback on:

  • French Destroyers Early Access
  • Symbols of France Event
  • Ranked Battles
  • Clan Battles
  • Changes and Improvements

PLEASE

STOP

FORCE

CHANGING

PORTS

How many times do players have to ask for this simple courtesy?

 

  • Cool 7
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[PACNW]
Members
35 posts
2,741 battles

I agree with @Edgecase, the event and rewards are too complicated and difficult to follow. It seems like every event is getting more complicated than the last one. 

It makes it worse when the full event isn't even available at the same time. I cannot look at the missions to try to understand how it all works together because they are not yet available. 
Example: 
Part of the event, earning rewards by playing certain ships or by playing each of your ships once, came online today. 
Part of the event, Directives, comes online tomorrow. 
Part of the event, Shipments, comes online in two days. 

So it is going to take 3 days before I can look at the event as a whole to see what I need to accomplish? 
Please, either delay the start of the event a day or two so it doesn't start on the day of the patch and then start them all together, or start the Directives and Shipments on the same day as the patch. 

Edited by GaussDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,102
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,029 posts
17,165 battles

Island trees look cartoonish now.

See reflections too bright. 

IDK if it was Geforce update today or the new graphics.

 

Geforce 1060 3 gb ddr5.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,710
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,592 posts
10,804 battles

1. Played 3 battles so far, I rage quit on the 3rd because something on the WG end booted me to login and cost my team the game on the 3rd one (our Mino seemed to get booted too)

2. Yeah -other than Mino and the others that just outright slaughtered planes, the more consistent DPS was noticeable in cases and not in a good way after how many freaking buffs.

3. The removal of the 4 plane group is a bull and unwarranted nerf in the guise of attempting to fix things or absolute proof your Dev Team is too far removed to understand any issues regarding CV play. I used those planes all the time. I used them when they first came out - before your team nerfed them to hell when AA wasn't actually god tiered yet save on a couple ships. They were perfectly fine other than THE DAMAGE WAS TOO DAMNED HIGH GIVEN TEY DO EVEN MORE THAN RTS HAK'S DID PER TORP. And that is still an issue. Even after the nerf, they were still usable because it's a large enough group to be effective, using 4 instead of 2, and spends less time in AA as it needs only 3 runs to drop 12, not 6. Any CV player with 1/4 a brain knows to drop as close as possible, and they were doing just that, except in the cases you describe in why the change was made - and players dropping at longer range was an act of desperation because AA in the top tiers especially is too damn strong unless your a +2 CV of tier 8 or lower. Your entire issue with it's effectiveness, and hell the ever growing skill gap, is the broken damn AA system. Though if Sub's comments of 'why do plane losses matter if these stats are good' from last month are any indicator your Dev team clearly does not understand this fact as they don't understand how plane losses affect many of the stats he rattled off like damage done, win rate, and even spotting. Fix AA alone, that fixes the long range drops necessity. 

3.5 - In this decision you also mention "Bringing those settings to balance would require almost a complete overhaul of the parameters for the carrier and all of her squadrons, thus changing the very underlying concept of the ship. For that particular reason, we decided to remove these torpedo bombers." and the fact that tweaks to that would make it able to attack any target. CV's, as is, can attack any target they can get past the AA of. That 'ineffective' group you removed - not the best for it but have still sunk DD's that weren't sitting in smoke with it. There is no discernible  concept with these ships save maybe Kaga's being 'my planes are legion' - any others is so poorly executed it's not even funny. RTS USN had a clear role with it's tighter torp groups, but less torps overall, it's relatively better DB's, high HP planes - it was a better hunter of cruisers, and to an extent DD's. IJN's massive waves with more TB's from several angles to make up for the massive gaps in the drops, with weaker DB's overall that could only hit bigger targets usually - it was really better suited to attacking capital ships than smaller ones unless the cross attack was performed perfectly. Hell, these 'lines', that should have odd tiers returned for multiple reasons, seem to have no real identity, least not a cohesive one. Once you got past tier 6 in RTS at least on USN - you really got more consistent to it's more cruiser hunter role in attacks, while IJN was always a tad more BB attacker from the start. 

But then again your team doesn't seem to have wanted to consider that maybe, they needed to overhaul the concept of the ship and possibly line. Because that would mean admitting they were wrong - something they at times seriously seem to have trouble admitting, especially in regards to CV's. Less than 50% backing on tests even after throwing out 16% of players polled responses - Hell as I recall it was less than 40%, with the larger 'well maybe' population having a lot of stipulations that were ignored to make them go 'yeah this is okay' - but yeah, no, clearly they were right when a minority says this is great. Or a better example GZ - WE THE PLAYERS, at least the ones that didn't own it and even then, some of the ones that did, told them MULTIPLE TIMES that the ship was STILL too powerful, a few of us, either because we have experience in game design, experience with CV gameplay in this game, or have a decent or better comprehension of simple math, possibly a combination of all 3, even went so far as to tell you exact reasons of why certain things were over performing but YOUR dev team chose only to listen to players that said that the concept that they started with on GZ before it was released the first time, that they scrapped at the last second to meet a deadline, was fine and balanced when they determined it would be the last iteration to test. And then had the GALL to say they gave players too much input and that is why the last test they mandated, instead of further testing and maybe actually listening to us, was a failure and the ship would not be sold till this debacle of a rework was released. Which again many of us told you more than 6 months ago it needed way more than a week delay to be anywhere close. But no, here we are, more than 6 months now later, and CV's are no where near balanced despite claims this would be easier for your dev team to balance, We are back to square one of a small group of either elite or stubborn players playing them, with the elite ones again making them seem like unholy gods of death, which keeps making you further and further increase the skill gap for the wrong reasons and with incorrect changes to things such as accuracy when something actually needs a straight alpha nerf - like Hak's TB's. None of the goals of the rework have been achieved, none of the ones you stated anyway in the stream damn near a year ago as to why this mess was happening. 

  • Cool 5
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[TARK]
Members
4,154 posts
1,620 battles

Played my Hosho tonight.

Destroyers were slaughtering my planes.

I lost 20 planes to do ~7k damage. And I'm pretty experienced with CVs.

There is no way in hell I'm even taking my Ranger out.

Congrats, WG. You ignored our feedback once again.

1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

1. Played 3 battles so far, I rage quit on the 3rd because something on the WG end booted me to login and cost my team the game on the 3rd one (our Mino seemed to get booted too)

2. Yeah -other than Mino and the others that just outright slaughtered planes, the more consistent DPS was noticeable in cases and not in a good way after how many freaking buffs.

3. The removal of the 4 plane group is a bull and unwarranted nerf in the guise of attempting to fix things or absolute proof your Dev Team is too far removed to understand any issues regarding CV play. I used those planes all the time. I used them when they first came out - before your team nerfed them to hell when AA wasn't actually god tiered yet save on a couple ships. They were perfectly fine other than THE DAMAGE WAS TOO DAMNED HIGH GIVEN TEY DO EVEN MORE THAN RTS HAK'S DID PER TORP. And that is still an issue. Even after the nerf, they were still usable because it's a large enough group to be effective, using 4 instead of 2, and spends less time in AA as it needs only 3 runs to drop 12, not 6. Any CV player with 1/4 a brain knows to drop as close as possible, and they were doing just that, except in the cases you describe in why the change was made - and players dropping at longer range was an act of desperation because AA in the top tiers especially is too damn strong unless your a +2 CV of tier 8 or lower. Your entire issue with it's effectiveness, and hell the ever growing skill gap, is the broken damn AA system. Though if Sub's comments of 'why do plane losses matter if these stats are good' from last month are any indicator your Dev team clearly does not understand this fact as they don't understand how plane losses affect many of the stats he rattled off like damage done, win rate, and even spotting. Fix AA alone, that fixes the long range drops necessity. 

3.5 - In this decision you also mention "Bringing those settings to balance would require almost a complete overhaul of the parameters for the carrier and all of her squadrons, thus changing the very underlying concept of the ship. For that particular reason, we decided to remove these torpedo bombers." and the fact that tweaks to that would make it able to attack any target. CV's, as is, can attack any target they can get past the AA of. That 'ineffective' group you removed - not the best for it but have still sunk DD's that weren't sitting in smoke with it. There is no discernible  concept with these ships save maybe Kaga's being 'my planes are legion' - any others is so poorly executed it's not even funny. RTS USN had a clear role with it's tighter torp groups, but less torps overall, it's relatively better DB's, high HP planes - it was a better hunter of cruisers, and to an extent DD's. IJN's massive waves with more TB's from several angles to make up for the massive gaps in the drops, with weaker DB's overall that could only hit bigger targets usually - it was really better suited to attacking capital ships than smaller ones unless the cross attack was performed perfectly. Hell, these 'lines', that should have odd tiers returned for multiple reasons, seem to have no real identity, least not a cohesive one. Once you got past tier 6 in RTS at least on USN - you really got more consistent to it's more cruiser hunter role in attacks, while IJN was always a tad more BB attacker from the start. 

But then again your team doesn't seem to have wanted to consider that maybe, they needed to overhaul the concept of the ship and possibly line. Because that would mean admitting they were wrong - something they at times seriously seem to have trouble admitting, especially in regards to CV's. Less than 50% backing on tests even after throwing out 16% of players polled responses - Hell as I recall it was less than 40%, with the larger 'well maybe' population having a lot of stipulations that were ignored to make them go 'yeah this is okay' - but yeah, no, clearly they were right when a minority says this is great. Or a better example GZ - WE THE PLAYERS, at least the ones that didn't own it and even then, some of the ones that did, told them MULTIPLE TIMES that the ship was STILL too powerful, a few of us, either because we have experience in game design, experience with CV gameplay in this game, or have a decent or better comprehension of simple math, possibly a combination of all 3, even went so far as to tell you exact reasons of why certain things were over performing but YOUR dev team chose only to listen to players that said that the concept that they started with on GZ before it was released the first time, that they scrapped at the last second to meet a deadline, was fine and balanced when they determined it would be the last iteration to test. And then had the GALL to say they gave players too much input and that is why the last test they mandated, instead of further testing and maybe actually listening to us, was a failure and the ship would not be sold till this debacle of a rework was released. Which again many of us told you more than 6 months ago it needed way more than a week delay to be anywhere close. But no, here we are, more than 6 months now later, and CV's are no where near balanced despite claims this would be easier for your dev team to balance, We are back to square one of a small group of either elite or stubborn players playing them, with the elite ones again making them seem like unholy gods of death, which keeps making you further and further increase the skill gap for the wrong reasons and with incorrect changes to things such as accuracy when something actually needs a straight alpha nerf - like Hak's TB's. None of the goals of the rework have been achieved, none of the ones you stated anyway in the stream damn near a year ago as to why this mess was happening. 

You know...after two years of their contemptuous behavior...I'm pretty sure the data shows that WG does not care about player feedback for CVs.

@Kami

@Sub_Octavian

@Femennenly

Prove us wrong.

We told you the AA changes in 0.8.5 and 0.8.6 represented substantial buffs to AA that would drive away players. All of the information being presented about 0.8.7 indicates that it will be the same. Seriously, a guaranteed wipe of 1/3rd of the squadron? What do you think is going to happen to the rest of that squadron once they hit the constant DPS without sufficient squadron HP to survive it? And then after losing a whole flight...you just think the CV is going to keep charging in?

For the love of God, whoever you are listening to for CV and AA balance ideas...STOP LISTENING TO THEM.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[KILL]
Members
39 posts
16,615 battles

Way to go WoW. The nerf of the Chung Mu was exactly what that ship needed. I mean it was a fun ship even with the deep water torps which limited its use against other dd's but this game is not meant to be fun. I get that so thanks for the nerf. Next can you nerf the Scharnhorst? Oh wait, you already did by improving all other ships at tier 7 except for it. Maybe I will start to play my Atlanta.... I am certain nobody has nerfed it or ???

Edited by Esbern_Snare
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[POP]
Members
550 posts
6,375 battles
19 minutes ago, Esbern_Snare said:

Way to go WoW. The nerf of the Chung Mu was exactly what that ship needed. I mean it was a fun ship even with the deep water torps which limited its use against other dd's but this game is not meant to be fun. I get that so thanks for the nerf. Next can you nerf the Scharnhorst? Oh wait, you already did by improving all other ships at tier 7 except for it. Maybe I will start to play my Atlanta.... I am certain nobody has nerfed it or ???

Just wait for the upcoming IFHE nerf, Atlanta is gonna get hit hard.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,761
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,085 posts

I'd really like to know what your retention numbers for carrier players is now, as a percentage of the player base. I'll be generous and give you the one game a WEEK criteria instead of asking for one game a DAY. 

Whoever led the dev team to 0.8.0 on the carrier release deserves a huge pay raise. Why? 

I cannot see how they managed to ever get it released, considering all the pounding, hacking, stomping, crushing and all around dismemberment you've done to their work since. 

I'd almost have to guess they've left the team, right? Wouldn't blame them. 

One more time... all you had to do at that point was dial back the number of flights, bump some reload times, a nip and a tuck. 

You didn't need to perform open heart surgery then reopen the chest cavity to keep tweaking it. Clipping nails is not surgery. 

My money is going elsewhere these days. I'm playing here for free. No premium carrier on my list, no desire to spend FIFTY to SIXTY dollars on what would be a castrated ship type. 

God help you when you drop 0.8.7. 

I'm not sure your subs will come to the rescue either. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
420
[POP]
Members
550 posts
6,375 battles
10 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

I'd really like to know what your retention numbers for carrier players is now, as a percentage of the player base. I'll be generous and give you the one game a WEEK criteria instead of asking for one game a DAY. 

Whoever led the dev team to 0.8.0 on the carrier release deserves a huge pay raise. Why? 

I cannot see how they managed to ever get it released, considering all the pounding, hacking, stomping, crushing and all around dismemberment you've done to their work since. 

I'd almost have to guess they've left the team, right? Wouldn't blame them. 

One more time... all you had to do at that point was dial back the number of flights, bump some reload times, a nip and a tuck. 

You didn't need to perform open heart surgery then reopen the chest cavity to keep tweaking it. Clipping nails is not surgery. 

My money is going elsewhere these days. I'm playing here for free. No premium carrier on my list, no desire to spend FIFTY to SIXTY dollars on what would be a castrated ship type. 

God help you when you drop 0.8.7. 

I'm not sure your subs will come to the rescue either. 

If history repeats itself they will release super overpowered subs, tell everyone they are "balanced" and sell a bunch of premiums then nerf them into the ground.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[WOOKY]
Members
191 posts
9,427 battles

Why did the devs fix raptor rescue from playable on the test server to stupid on the live server?  it worked then but sucks now!  quit breaking things that work @thedevs.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,761
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,085 posts
1 hour ago, HallaSnackbar said:

If history repeats itself they will release super overpowered subs, tell everyone they are "balanced" and sell a bunch of premiums then nerf them into the ground.

:cap_like::cap_haloween:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25
[NVRDY]
Members
62 posts
17,565 battles
On 7/23/2019 at 6:29 AM, Kami said:

updateisLive.jpg

Hey Captains,

With 0.8.6. being released, please leave your feedback and thoughts on the latest patch.

Please leave feedback on:

  • French Destroyers Early Access
  • Symbols of France Event
  • Ranked Battles
  • Clan Battles
  • Changes and Improvements

AA still seems a little wea k, some times i can get a atack threw. looks like AA could be buffed a little more.image.thumb.png.a19d1c8419f6297ddd655149945ca996.png

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[KSE]
Members
87 posts
3,946 battles

Update reset all my games settings to default, I had found the sweet spot for audio and everything else. Now trying to remember how I had it is very annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28
[EMAG]
Members
115 posts
2,066 battles
15 hours ago, Bill_Schmuckatelli said:

Is there ANY game mode left where I can avoid matches with CVs?

I quit playing Ranked & Clan to focus on Co-op so I could avoid the CV debacle, but now CVs seem to have infested even the Co-op battles...

I suggest that we be given a check list of ship types.  You don't want to play CVs, uncheck it. You might have to wait longer for a game.  I think this would be great for CV only games or DD or BB only.   I can imagine that subs will be unchecked a lot.   I suspect that a sub only game would be slow.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×